Janzir's page

I'll make a note of it and do my best to get back and post.

One last note to everyone talking about the damage the fighter does at level 20. The rogue at level 20 gets master strike. Master strike means instant death (failing a FORT save).

As I stated, my group does double moves on their first round to flank their opponents; granted we've been out doors where this is more possible than in a dungeon. But in these cases, the rogue does the damage to kill them at lower levels, and has an instant kill at higher levels when they do little to nothing to earn the extra damage.

Anyway, I'll do my best to get back and post.

Janzir wrote:

So rogues get extra damage from a manuever while other classes can only spend feats to do the same thing. This is what makes it a broken rule.

I'd like to point out the rogue gets a die of sneak attack at the same time the fighter gets a bonus feat. Food for thought.

I would be interested to see a playtest report posted here after you've used this houserule for awhile, and how many of your players actually play rogues, and how satisfied they are with it all.

How about my party just might learn to get rid of the video game/powergaming mentality and learn how to play the class as its described in the Core Rulebook?

Hmm...imagine that thought...

Do us a favor keep a log of every game you run with this. Try to run several if you can. Do it honestly and sometime around Jan. come back nad tell us how many Rogues you have in your parties.

Bobson,

This mentality is the problem. People seem to think "falling behind" from fighter damage just shouldn't happen. That mentality is just wrong. The class is not a head-to-head melee class. He excels at catching people unaware, slipping that poison dagger between the ribs real quick and leaving. Sitting round after round after round until the opponent is dead in toe-to-toe (or toe-to-heal) combat goes against the role as described in the Core book, not to mention the entire history of the class.

Flanking is actually under the heading of Combat Modifiers. The rest is semantics. No other class gets extra damage from because they receive a combat modifier without taking a feat first. There's no consistancy in this rule with anything else, history of the class, sneak attack requirements, or extra damage available to the other classes. That makes this rule unbalanced all around.

As I stated earlier, House Rule will require the the feat of precise strikes (I'll add it as one of the rogue bonus feats and they will recieve their SA damage in accordance with the requirements of the feat. That is, flanked by somone with precise strikes. Lacking this, to get the SA, the rogue will be required to catch the opponent unaware as with all sneak attacks.

This solution restores the consistancy of the class, maintains the history of the class, and doesn't give one class an adavantage doing the same thing another class can do, i.e. flanking.

Janzir wrote:

It can be fixed by adhering to the requirement (which has been constant for the last 32 years.) to catch them off-guard. Of course, after the first round, the rogue would lose this benefit. If the rogue would like to have the extra damage, then take the precise strike feat like everyone else must do, or make it a class bonus feat. Combat manuevers should NEVER grant one class extra damage over any other class. Even 4E requires combat advantage to maintain sneak attack each round--there's a requirement to make it happen. Why should 3E or 3.5E or 3.75 be different than all other versions?

And 4e combat advantage is provided by flanking, IIRC.

Also, flaking is not a combat maneuver. Combat maneuvers are things like trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc. There are plenty of classes and races which get bonuses to those automatically. Flanking is a position. Saying that the rogue shouldn't get a bonus from their positioning because other classes don't, is like saying that an archer or spellcaster shouldn't get a penalty for their positioning (attacks of opportunity) because other classes don't.

Quote:

Before you do off-the cuff replies, take a moment to think about it. You're most likely going to struggle with the desire for the rogue to be combat viable. He is, but in the role he has been intended for since his inception. This makes the rogue the way the rogue has always been, a sneak in, cut-em, and leave, or a sniper with the bow, or a poisoner from the shadows. If players want to lots of melee damage then they should take a fighter class, not a rogue. This also, keeps with the description of the class in the Core book and all of the DnD versions to date.

A rogue is NOT combat viable if they can only get off one sneak attack every few turns. We've already shown how they fall behind even when they can do sneak attack damage on every attack. If they only can do it once a turn, then they may as well just twiddle their thumbs in combat for all the good...

Leo, if you don't have anything useful to say, quite simply, don't.

Seriously is someone who thinks that rogues getting multiple sneak attacks is overpowered? I mean seriously?

Even with god stats (which greatly benefit the twf rogue), a rogue can't overshadow the full BAB classes (except cavaliers, i don't know about them), and in fact i have seen it in a game with god stats, we were playing Kingmaker and i was playing a switch hitter ranger, near at the end of the game you know who was on par with my damage and maybe a little more? the magus when he was going nova, the rogue had problems getting sneak attacks and most importantly hitting the enemies, you know because he has 3/4 BAB and no to up his attack roll like the full BAB classes have.
Do you also believe that rogues shouldn't get sneak attack with big weapons like the falchion or the greataxe?

Thanks for the reminder on the weapon finesse. I missed that early this morning...lack of sleep is a wonderful thing. :)

Elves and half-elves are immune to sleep. One sorc took sleep and the other focuses on fire damage. The group decided on only one fighter. They're screwed, blued, and tattooed.

Janzir wrote:

Cheapy,

My guys roll for stats. Assuming a 10 STR won't work. The average will be a +2. on the STR.

I was going without consideration of feats. However, if I were to make a first level rogue. I would choose weapon finesse and two handed fighting. We'll say 18 DEX (16 roll +2 from race) and 15 STR. So the attacks are at +2, +2. Weapon Finesse only requires the off hand weapon be light. So longsword/short sword combo.

Damage is (D8+2+SA:D6)+(D6+2+SA:D6).
Longsword Avg is 5.5 on a D8 plus 2 and 4.5(?) on a D6 =12 pts.
Shortsword Avg is 4.5 plus 2 and 4.5 =11
Total damage per round is 23 (21 if a D6 avg is 3.5)
Double those numbers if a second rogue is flanking on the other side. AND attacks raise to +4 with each weapon.

Max PC hp with this group is 13. High AC is 17; low AC is 10.

See the problem?

Weapon Finesse grants Dex to Attack rolls. It applies to light weapons and the occasional other weapon, like a rapier. The longsword would only have a +2 to hit from Strength score. The shortsword would have +4 from Dex.

Also, your averages are off by one. It's half + 0.5 for an average roll, so a d8 is 4.5 and d6 is 3.5.
Average damage using a longsword + shortsword combo is 10 + 9.
+2 to hit on the longsword vs "the guy trying to block hits" AC 17 means only a 30% chance to hit (needs to roll better than a 14 to hit). The 10 damage is only 3 now.
The +4 on the shortsword is 40% (min 13 to hit), so 3.6 damage.
So when fighting the guy who's supposed to be taking the hits, we are looking at an average 6.6 damage on a full attack with flanking.

Against AC 10, it's much better, of course. Longsword is doing 6.5 damage, and the shortsword is doing 6.75 damage, total of 13.25 damage. Against the squishy guy, you can probably drop him in a round of full attacks. But that's kind of the point really (and he's not dead, just unconscious).

If the Rogue has to move up to his target, and isn't flanking, then he's doing longsword damage of 1.95 vs AC 17,...

I'm planning on trying it out. Thank you!

This came up over 10 years ago when the Rogue was first introduced in 3.0e. Messageboards like this were a little more rare back then, but they were there and I can recall heated discussions just like this.

Mostly it was a factor of "big looking numbers with hidden costs". Between having a lower chance to hit, situational access to the damage, less access to damage dealing benefits, and a tendency to splitting focus, the Rogue really didn't benefit nearly as much as the first glance would indicate.

I remember hearing things like "OMG 60 damage per attack at 20th? With TWF you can do like 7 attacks.. that's 420 damage in a round!".
All this on the crossover from 2e, where dragons and Balors can be found with less than 100 hitpoints... the shock to the system was a lot for some people.

But when you look at the numbers... the chance to land those hits are on a diminishing return (TWF has penalties, lower BAB, iteratives have even less chance to hit, the class has no built-in option for landing hits better, etc), those numbers dwindle horribly.
To the point that in 3.5e supplements and Pathfinder, the Rogue had to be boosted.

.
But beyond all that, the best proof is in experience. I see builds and numbers on these boards that give out hypotheticals, but it rarely turns out the same way in play.
I mean... I've never seen a Rogue character built with a 7 Int and 7 Cha.

As I said in the past (back in the year 2000), try it out first before making changes or claiming that the sky is falling. After a decade of experience through thousands and thousands of players playing D&D world-wide, we've come to a conclusion that's far less gloomy than you might expect.

I finally figured out why this sticks in my craw so much. All the discussion here has been wonderful. Thank you all.

The reason it bothers me is because the rogue is getting extra damage from doing a flanking action, a combat manuever. What other class gets the same benefit? Yes, feats can be taken to do this for the other classes (precise strike available with BAB +1) AND both flanking characters have to have this feat. It is at that time, they get extra damage. FEATS are required.

However, the rogue does the flanking maneuver and gets extra damage automatically with no cost in feats. It's lauded as a sneak attack, but does not adhere to the normal sneak attack rules. That is, you have to catch them off guard (flat-footed, No DEX bonus).

So rogues get extra damage from a manuever while other classes can only spend feats to do the same thing. This is what makes it a broken rule.

It can be fixed by adhering to the requirement (which has been constant for the last 32 years.) to catch them off-guard. Of course, after the first round, the rogue would lose this benefit. If the rogue would like to have the extra damage, then take the precise strike feat like everyone else must do, or make it a class bonus feat. Combat manuevers should NEVER grant one class extra damage over any other class. Even 4E requires combat advantage to maintain sneak attack each round--there's a requirement to make it happen. Why should 3E or 3.5E or 3.75 be different than all other versions?

Before you do off-the cuff replies, take a moment to think about it. You're most likely going to struggle with the desire for the rogue to be combat viable. He is, but in the role he has been intended for since his inception. This makes the rogue the way the rogue has always been, a sneak in, cut-em, and leave, or a sniper with the bow, or a poisoner from the shadows. If players want to lots of melee damage then they should take a fighter class, not a rogue. This also, keeps with the description of the class in the Core book and all of the DnD versions to date.

Also, if a Paizo staff answers, please identify yourself as such. It would be greatly appreciated.

Last, I know I can make this a house rule, and will.

Last, last: Allia, it wasn't that I thought I knew more than everyone else, it was because deep in my gut, I knew this was unbalanced and needed to figure out why. Now that I have, I can address it. Thank you for your help and comments, as well as the rest of you. You have my most sincere gratitude.

{/QUOTE} I would really like to see an official Paizo staff member explain. Further clarification in the books or updates or srd would be wonderful.

Cheapy,

My guys roll for stats. Assuming a 10 STR won't work. The average will be a +2. on the STR.

I was going without consideration of feats. However, if I were to make a first level rogue. I would choose weapon finesse and two handed fighting. We'll say 18 DEX (16 roll +2 from race) and 15 STR. So the attacks are at +2, +2. Weapon Finesse only requires the off hand weapon be light. So longsword/short sword combo.

Damage is (D8+2+SA:D6)+(D6+2+SA:D6).
Longsword Avg is 5.5 on a D8 plus 2 and 4.5(?) on a D6 =12 pts.
Shortsword Avg is 4.5 plus 2 and 4.5 =11
Total damage per round is 23 (21 if a D6 avg is 3.5)
Double those numbers if a second rogue is flanking on the other side. AND attacks raise to +4 with each weapon.

Max PC hp with this group is 13. High AC is 17; low AC is 10.

See the problem?

Simon Legrande wrote:

Huamn fighter level 1 with falchion

3 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +2
Attack bonus w/ PA +1 (-1, +2)
Damage w/o PA = 2d4+6 = 11
Damage w/ PA = 2d4+8 = 13

Human rogue level 1 with falchion
2 feats
STR 18, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x 2
Attack bonus +0
Damage (2d4+6)+(1d6) = 11+3.5 = 14.5

So at level 1 the rogue has a lower attack bonus and can't take power attack because of it. The fighter has a better chance to hit, even when using power attack. I guess if you think that makes the rogue OP because he has a minimal chance to do 1.5 more damage than the fighter then that's your call.

Actually, you need to do this over two rounds, since the rogue needs a round to get into flanking position.

So the fighter is actually doing 26 damage, and the rogue is doing 14.5.

My apologies Allia. The Greatsword is 2d6. I misspoke, but this means at first level the rogue with a shortsword matches the fighter damage. The one with a 2H sword gets 1d6 more damage than the fighter.

My players choose to roll stats rather than point buy. So stats can be all over the place. There is a very good chance they will have at least a +2 strength bonus to go with the DEX.

a) first or 3rd level is hardly the entire game

b) which weapon does 3d6 damage?
c) Rogues have lower BAB, if they add power attack to that, they get into the area of 1/2 BAB classes. Not hitting means no sneak attack
d) If they have high dex so that Weapon Finesse is worthwile, they have little strength to add to the damage.
e) Also that doesn't in any way negate the lower BAB. Because you know, fighters do add their Str to attack as well. Without the extra feat.
f) TWF needs ALOT of feats. And sucks at damage. Until you add Sneak Attack, which is what makes it a viable alternative to two-handed combat.
g) using another fighter as distraction is avoiding head-to-head combat. It's now a 2-on-1 fight.

Thanks, Stubs. That's helpful.

You should definitely check out the DPR Olympics thread, rogues don't really do that fantastically well, and are rather squishy. If you go the TWF route, you have to wield a light weapon in your offhand to only take a -2/-2 to attacks, so most min/maxers wield a shortsword/shortsword (d6/d6) so that their weapon based feats work for both weapons. You are also a 3/4 BAB class, and usually will have a high dex for skills and reflex saves. Because of this you are also taking the feat Weapon Finesse. So that's Weapon finesse, and twf, to which you really need to add quick draw, so you can pull both of your weapons at the start of combat. Lets pretend you have all of those feats at level one. Assuming a dex of 16 to start, and a strength of 12 (15 point buy without dumping heavily), you swing at the nearest enemy, at a total roll of +1/+1, or +3/+3 if you are flanking and can full attack for a total of d6(shortsword)+d6(sneak attack)+1(strength) ~ 2d6+1. Good luck on those hits. You also have 9-10 hps and an ac of 14-15. Of course, you wont be able to get all 3 of those feats at lvl 1, so even this is pushing it.

Rogues are entirely reliant on SA, if they don't get it, they are the worst damage dealers bar none. They also have bad fort and will saves, and need to be in melee to do much of anything close to decent damage.

EDIT: if you let your players roll stats, and those stats are exceedingly generous, then the rogue will seem much more overpowered in your early game, but even then, but lvl 8 or so they will have begun to lag behind in both damage and usefulness noticeably.

Also, it's not just fighters, but paladins, and rangers as well, they will all do better than the rogue built even half decently due to a full BAB and class abilities. Smite is pretty insane nowadays, way better than it was in 3.x, and the ranger favored terrain can be a massive boost.

Try it for first level now.

Simon Legrande wrote:

I did this quick so I really only included a couple feats from the Core book. Here's a rough damage comparison at level 20, you should see why the 10d6 SA damage really is only enough to keep the rogue afloat.

Human fighter 20 with falchion
21 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 15-20 X3 auto confirm
Attack bonus +34/+29/+24/+19
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +28/+23/+18/+13 (-6, +18)
Damage w/o PA = 4x(2d4+20) = 100
Damage w/ PA = 4x(2d4+38) = 172

Human rogue 20 with falchion
11 feats at level 20
STR 26, DEX 10
Crit 18-20 x2
Attack bonus +24/+19/+14
Highest attack bonus w/ PA +20/+15/+10 (-4, +12)
Damage w/o PA = 3x(2d4+12)+3x(10d6) = 51+105 = 156
Damage w/ PA = 3x(2d4+24)+3x(1d6) = 87+105 = 192

The rogue looks like he'll out damage the fighter until you count the doubled crit range, higher crit multiple, auto confirm, and higher attack bonus of the fighter.
The fighter only has to roll a 15 (hitting AC 43/38/33/28 with PA) to deal 6d4+114 (129) damage per hit, 4x129 = 516 in one round.
If the rogue somehow manages to get 3 crits rolling at least 18 and a confirmation (hitting AC 38/33/28 with PA) he deals (6d4+72)+(10d6) (122) per hit, 3x122 = 366 in one round.
This rogue build has him strictly trying to compete with the fighter for damage which means that most other things rogues do suffer. Please feel free to correct the numbers if you catch something wrong.

While I do know that the rogue is at an extreme disadvantage, you've put him at a greater disadvantage DPR-wise by not letting him use Two-Weapon Fighting.

I understand. The problem is that my players are level 1. So the low level scenario is what's taking place. What's more, if I took them against a group of rogues, they wouldn't stand a chance. Two rogues with short swords could fell a 1st level of any class in a single round if the rolls were average.

Perhaps, in the long run this won't matter. Right now it's creating havok.

Personally, I think a sneak attack should require successful sneaking...as it has been since 1E, and with normal sneak attacks. Anything else is a called shot. This is just my opinion and I'm willing to change it, but I would like some good logic to back up the change.

I apologize for any confusion. No, flanks do not require stealth. That analysis is basically an argument that a Rogue rarely gets a Sneak Attack Full Attack on the first round of combat, which delays his ability to pour out the desired damage.

Of course, to immediately check myself, our comparison fighter rarely gets a Full Attack on the first round of combat either (barring teleports, which a Rogue could also get, or certain effects such as the Pounce ability high level Barbarians may access). So the dissection really isn't as useful as it was intended.

Back to response:

Indeed, without me double-checking the math, your example builds do favor the Rogue -- but this is in a vacuum. He averages higher damage -on the rounds that he can pull off Sneak Attacks.- Even then, this is in the early game, with a Rogue build specialized for the early game (and suboptimal for later game); other models must be viewed to see the progression at large.

A lot of long-term Rogue builds sacrifice Strength in favor of other ability scores. They also want Dex, Con, and Intelligence after all. One rogue trick or feat, and all of a sudden they can increase their melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, armor class, and ability to Stealth (and thus get more Sneak Attacks) all with one ability score. Single-Attribute Dependency is a path to power, and a Rogue that doesn't max his AC and keep Con high to compensate for low hit points is a path to death.

Compare this to 2-hand rogue builds that favor Strength. Well ... it will work, I suppose. Yet your BAB is only 3/4 advancement; you won't get as many attacks as a fighter, and they won't be at as high to-hits, reducing your damage output further. You will get to the point where you can't rely on Power Attack, which is one of the keystones of the Strength combatant.

A Rogue's juice doesn't come from Strength damage. It comes from Sneak Attack, which is why so many prefer to opt for two-weapon fighting (more opportunities for +10d6). I have no doubt that Rogue...

I plan on doing just that.

I'm not really sure where you're getting that 1d6 is actually a lot of damage. 1d6 is 3.5 damage, on average, and it can't crit.

So we have a 3/4 BAB class that can sometimes (with effort/teamwork) get an extra 3.5 damage per hit, increasing by 3.5 every 2 levels. If you really think it's overpowered, I invite you to throw down a rogue, level of your choice, and we'll see how he comes close to damage with another melee class.

If you have ever done martial arts, you know you can effectively defend against two opponents. Divided attention doesn't hold water. Will the flanked person get hit more? Yes, absolutely. Will those hits automatically make it to a vital spot? No way. As long as the flanked can get a shield or weapon or arm or leg inbetween, then it isn't happening automatically. As long as the flanked can move, the divided attention and automatic sneak attack doesn't work properly.

The response from Troubleshooter makes much more sense. What do you think?

Janzir wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Sneak Attack is not Backstab.

The sooner you stop thinking it is, the better off you'll be.

I'm sorry. I must be getting hung on on the word "sneak." Let's rename it to do massive damage attack while flanked with no logical explanation in accordance with it's own guideline.

If you need that spelled out, that would be "if they can catch their opponent when he is unable to defend effectively, which is defined as flat-footed and losing the DEX bonus.

Does the flanked person become flat-footed and lose the DEX bonus? If not, then explain how the defender isn't able to defend effectively?

The argument of split focus can be made, but it doesn't hold water. The word is effectively defend, not efficiently defend; the flanked person already gets a +2 to be hit. BUT he is still defending with a DEX bonus.

So why does one part require the loss of DEX bonus and the second part does not?

Because it's two different situations.

If they lose Dex they don't know you're there, or otherwise can't react to you. So you can easily pick out their weakspots and stab a knife into it.

And yes, the split focus argument holds water. Flanking does not mean "2 people attacking" it's "from opposite sides" as well. Try defending yourself against attacks from left and right, with you pinned in the middle. You will leave yourself wide open, that makes you easier to hit (+2) and also allows the enemy to stick that knife into your weakspots.
Imagine how you must position yourself to defend against this situation. Most likely you'll turn one side to each oponent. But that also means they can attack your back, where your defense usually is alot worse. If you fight one enemy, you going to face him directly. Not only are you not distracted, you don't offer him your unprotected side.

Troubleshooter, thank you for your in-depth response.

Am I to understand that the rogue needs to approach the flank undetected (you state stealth)? So the opponent still must not be aware of the rogue? So what happens in the second round when the opponent is aware? See what I'm getting at?

Having the rogue stealth into a sneak attack has always been the requirement for the rogue. Yet, this flanking rule does not state a stealth requirement; is it in print somewhere?

My PC's seem to think they can run full bore up to an oppenent, flank him, and let the damage dealing begin! Your comments on flanking and maintaining it are a great help!

So short of details, what I'm taking away is that 1) the rogue needs to be stealthed on the initial attack and 2) the flank must be maintained...which can be controlled via 5FS.

Yes, I know good fighter builds with the proper feats can do more damage. My broken build for a rogue doesn't require even a feat (with the exception of the 2H version).

Thanks again.

As a matter of fact, that's how Rogues were in 3.x -- they could get multiple SAs per round -- but the ability was so situational, that Paizo actually had to strip away Sneak Attack immunity away from a huge amount of monsters to keep Rogue as a viable class in Pathfinder system.

Monsters used to be pretty much completely Rogue-immune if they were Plant, Undead, Construct, Ooze, (Aberration?) benefited from concealment or one of many abilities that granted immunity to critical hits. That's a whole lot of things that prevents your character from being useful, and it wasn't until later 3.x supplements that they began to address the ability with magic items and feats to allow you to apply your Sneak Attack damage, often with a penalty.

Your issue is flanking full attacks, so let's address that.

For one thing, you have to get into a flanking position, usually meaning spending in time actually getting there. I argue that, for my groups, we rarely manage to get a Rogue adjacent to the enemy as combat opens; one must benefit from some kind of Cover or concealment (often shadows) to use Stealth, so there isn't much outside of magic or hijinks that will allow you to walk up to an enemy in a well-lit room from the only doorway and stab him in the neck. Further, between Alarm spells, high Perception checks, Scent, Tremorsense, Blindsight and other effects, the Rogue is likely to be caught on the approach. Heck, even when a Rogue is approaching an opponent on the shadowy periphery of a torch's light, if that opponent has low-light vision, then the Rogue is perfectly well lit.

Even when your Rogue has flank, it must be maintained to actually set up your 'broken build'. 5-foot steps make this a tricky prospect, as an opponent may 5-foot step away, breaking flank while maintaining its Full Round Action. Your natural response would likely be "But the flankers can just 5 foot step in", yes? Yes, but the sequencing determines whether or not the Rogue can actually perform that Full Attack or not. If the...

I am currently playing a rogue right now while there is also a two-handed fighter in the group. It is not overpowered at all considering I have to position myself just right and the circumstances have to be in my favor. The two-handed fighter easily crushes me in damage, I am just there to support him and get attention off the casters. On paper I guess it could seem OP, but in gameplay, it really isn't.

Thanks, Robot. I appreciate the positive input.

Sneak Attack is not Backstab.

The sooner you stop thinking it is, the better off you'll be.

I'm sorry. I must be getting hung on on the word "sneak." Let's rename it to do massive damage attack while flanked with no logical explanation in accordance with it's own guideline.

If you need that spelled out, that would be "if they can catch their opponent when he is unable to defend effectively, which is defined as flat-footed and losing the DEX bonus.

Does the flanked person become flat-footed and lose the DEX bonus? If not, then explain how the defender isn't able to defend effectively?

The argument of split focus can be made, but it doesn't hold water. The word is effectively defend, not efficiently defend; the flanked person already gets a +2 to be hit. BUT he is still defending with a DEX bonus.

So why does one part require the loss of DEX bonus and the second part does not?

I am currently playing a rogue right now while there is also a two-handed fighter in the group. It is not overpowered at all considering I have to position myself just right and the circumstances have to be in my favor. The two-handed fighter easily crushes me in damage, I am just there to support him and get attention off the casters. On paper I guess it could seem OP, but in gameplay, it really isn't.

Ok...2H fighter...level 1. 3d6 plus strength damage. Flanking rogue...two-handed sword..weapon proficiency 2H...does 3d6 plus d6 plus strength damage. What? Longsword d8+d6 plus strength (elf). Short Sword, 2d6 plus strength.

3rd level 2H fighter 3d6 plus strength. Flanking rogue 2H 3d6 plus 2d6 plus strength (5d6 + STR). Longsword, d8 plus 2d6 plus strength. Short sword d6 plus 2d6 plus strength. They now do the same damage as the 2H fighter. Difference? The rogue has less hp and less armor. BAB? Add weapon finesse with that high DEX.

This is a far cry from a character that is written up as the class that "tends to avoid head-to-head combat."

Can someone please explain how the rogue, who gets a sneak attack if his opponent is caught unawares (no DEX bonus) and that only lasting one round except in special circumstances, that simply because the rogue is now flanking an opponent gets unlimited sneak attacks?

Since the inception of the rogue, 1E, a sneak attack was a once per opponent per battle thing and it involved sneaking. That is, hide in shadows/stealth.

So we come to 3E and it is possible to flank and get a sneak attack (something that has been done since 1E, but without the pretty name). But again, only one sneak attack. After that, the opponent was aware of you can could defend, thus preventing further sneak attacks (again barring special circumstances).

Now all of a sudden a rogue can flank (because a name was added to the manuvuer) and they can sneak attack each round without limitation? Regardless that the opponent has his DEX bonus and can defend? This makes the rogue the best melee class. How did that happen? Was I asleep? This seems like massive powergaming from a perspective of 32 years playing.

I would really like to see an official Paizo staff member explain. Further clarification in the books or updates or srd would be wonderful.

Ta thanks thats what i thought but my gm wanted to make sure, after i got two attacks off on a flanked cloud giant, and done it a total of 111 hp, thats was with a critical, im not that normally that good lol

Your DM was right to question it. A Cloud Giant is 18 feet tall. How did you reach the vital areas? Did you use a bow? Did you take a full attack to recieve the two attacks for the round? Were you dual wielding? If so, then you'll have to explain how you reach vital areas. Paizo isn't specific, but 3.5 rules are. You cannot get sneak attack damage for swinging at arms and legs in lieu of vital areas you cannot reach.

So unless you have a good reason to reach the vital areas, you didn't qualify for a sneak attack.

Dennis, the sneak attack ability states the rogue must be able to see and reach a vital area. The vitals are kidneys, heart, lungs, liver, etc...all internal organs. There are very few spells that will allow access to damage these internal organs directly like the requirement for sneak attack. Therefore, no sneak attack with most spells. All the rays do is burn, or frost the outside of the body. The sneak attack is for internal organs.

Don't confuse sneak attack with critical damage. A crit deals extra damage because a fighter hit "just" right and the blade cut deeper or the mace crushed ribs or the stars aligned and that touch spell released a bit more energy. However, a crit is not a sneak attack. Just because an attack can cause a crit doesn't mean that attack can now be used for a sneak attack. Why? Back to those vital internal organs.

Sneak attacks and flanking are one shots as well. Once the opponent receives that first attack, he knows the rogue is there and what he just did HURT! He then begins twisting and moving and putting shield and sword and arms and legs, if necessary, in the way of any further attacks to vital areas. This prevents access to those areas and negates the sneak attack. This access to the vital areas statement is contained in the last paragraph of the Core book (p. 68). This is where the emphasis needs to lie in regard to considering this attack. This should have been in the first paragraph.

Now, I had one player argue that flanking allowed the rogue to stick an opponent under the arm and into the lungs soley because he was flanked. However, we have a rule for called shots in combat and they have a -4 to hit the specific area. Why the -4? Two possible reasons: 1) the area is small or 2) the opponents is not a straw dummy that stands and lets someone hit them. Therefore, the -4.

Just because a rogue is a rogue doesn't mean he can ignore the called shot rule when an opponent is aware of them and defending.

In a flanking situation, I grant that defense would be less than against a single opponent and this is why there is a +2 to hit. However, to hit a specific spot when the opponent is aware requires a called shot and the ensuing penalty. When one takes a called shot and makes it, there is a good reason for extra damage.

Sneak attacks with splash weapons and ray spells and anything that doesn't reach internal organs is a misunderstanding of the rule; eyes and groin and ears are not vital organs. People can live if blind, deaf, or in pain. People cannot live without lungs or kidneys or heart.

What I wrote above has been the intent for the sneak attack since I started playing in 1979. Paizo hasn't changed this intent as far as I read.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Complete Arcane states that spells that have an attack roll but do not deal damage cannot score a critical hit. We can infer from that that they do not get sneak attack either. The section on sneak attack also mentions that sneak attack is extra damage of the type the spell deals, no mention of non-damaging spells getting SA.

The combat chapter talks about critical hits and spells:

combat wrote:

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Pretty much confirms what you said about criticals. Unfortunately, misses a lot of other implications like sneak attack or spells that do ability damage. I really wish they'd touched on this at least briefly.

Your statement cannot be further from the truth. Take your basic fireball. 10d6 damage at 10th level. Metamagic: Maximize damage. Sixty points to everything in a twenty-foot radius. Save for half. How about finger of death..fail the save and your dead. Yep...no major damage there. How about meteor swarm? How about Prismatic Sphere? I'm still a bit new to Pathfinder. Do we still have delayed blast fireball?

A fighter is going to average 50 points a round against one target at higher levels. A mage will beat him every time...until the spells run out...then it's squishy time.

I suspect you don't play mages, or someone hasn't shown you how to play them well. They are damage dealing machines at higher levels.

Janzir wrote:

Balance comes in the fact that mages suck at low levels and have much less armor and weapon use than a rogue. This is the trade for the higher damage at higher levels.

To be clear mages never have high damage -- especially compared to the rogue, fighter or any other martial type character, unless you want to look at a 'spread' of damage such as a AOE spell... and even then the results tend towards disappointment.

You're doing it exactly right. Keep it up.

The rogue isn't useless in combat if he isn't doing the same damage as a fighter; that's a video game mentality and it stinks for the game.

From what I'm reading here, people have lost sight of what a rogue does. He isn't a combat person...period. He debilitates, he wounds, he leaves them weak and sick. To put it in a video game mentality, he's a controller. Controllers do crap damage, but the knock the opponent off balance with a variety of tools...caltrops, poisons, range attacks (In D&D he was second only to the ranger for ranged attacks). The first paragraph of the rogue is very explicit about his role.

Tell that fighter to go open that chest, or pick that lock, or disarm that trap, or search for secret doors (Yes, everyone gets perception, but the rogue excels at the skills). As a trade, he doesn't do fighter damage or mage spell damage. He isn't nerfed. He isn't useless. He has a role and excels in it. People that think he's nerfed are attempt to put the rogue in the wrong role.

Let's not forget a rogue should have a high UMD, too. So he can pull out his little wand of haste and hit you twice as much while he dances around his opponent. He never does large damage, but he whittles away at the log until there are just a bunch of toothpicks around.

I must be an Evil GM....

In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?

... Discuss

Have fun out there

~ W ~

Balance comes in the fact that mages suck at low levels and have much less armor and weapon use than a rogue. This is the trade for the higher damage at higher levels.

Balance also comes because the mage isn't detecting traps, disarming traps, opening locks, and most of the other utility things a rogue does. Are there spells that do some of these things? Yes, but a rogue can do them all day long; a mage cannot.

Also, the mage is limited on how many times a day he can drop that 10d6 fireball. If sneak attack is not limited, then the rogue is the one unbalanced. Heck, he even gets sneak attack at range now; this is something that wasn't allowed originally.

The problem is that people want to be the everything guy, and that isn't how the game was designed nor, I daresay, was intended.

Wallsingham wrote:

I must be an Evil GM....

In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?

No, it's not.

You're seriously nerfing a class near the bottom of the power curve.
Now, if you also make the Wizard spend 15 rounds to cast a Fireball, then maybe we're approaching "balance".

This exact problem arose in my game tonight. I've been playing D&D since 1979 and the thought has always been that the rogue has to be able to reach and freely hit a vital spot--this is the last paragraph of the sneak attack description in the Core Rulebook. (This vital spot necessity is the reason of the flat-footed rule). It used to be the rogue had to be successfully sneaking and come up from behind. My group read the sneak attack was allowed due to flanking and thinks the rogue should be able to get sneak attack damage each round as long as the rogue is flanked. This means in a normal 5 round combat the rogue would get and extra 30d6 of damage in addition to whatever their weapon damage is or any possible crits.

There are very few Beastiary monsters or PC's or NPC's that stand a chance against that. Even mages don't do that kind of consistent damage.

I ruled in what I believe is the spirit of the rogue and the history of the rogue sneak attack. It's on the first attack. After that, the opponent is aware of the rogue and is actively defending. Hence, additional sneak attack.

If, however, something causes the opponent to lose his DEX bonus, then the rogue would get his sneak attacks once again.

Wallsingham wrote:

I must be an Evil GM....

In my game, a Rogues Sneak Attack is a Full Round action and only ONE swing. I mean, think about this.... if your rogue gets his Sneak Attack damage on all his swings, isn't that a bit excessive at higher levels?

... Discuss

Have fun out there

~ W ~

You aren't an evil GM, just a bad one.

No, this isn't the case. Where this says you get sneak attack because "your opponent hasn't moved" is in the context of the paragraphs speaking about the surprise round. Sneak attacks from flat-footed only work in the surprise round. After the end of that round, your opponenet gains his DEX bonus back and you do not get the sneak attack.

Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

Until the opponent acts, he is flat-footed and therefore vulnerable to sneak attack, until he actually takes an action. As a matter of the fact, you may get even more sneak attacks if you out-initiative your opponent after striking from invisibility.

That is correct.